From George Washington to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 December 1796
To the Commissioners for the District of Columbia
Philadelphia 1st Decr 1796
Gentlemen,
Your letter of the 25th Ulto came to hand on tuesday last,1 but it was not in my power to give it an earlier acknowledgment: and now, I must do it without resorting to papers (to be perfectly correct)—The pressure of my business, with the different Departments, previous to the meeting of Congress; and my own preparation for that event, leaves me but little time to attend to other matters.2
The discontents with which you are assailed by one or other of the Proprietors in the Federal City, must, unquestionably, be very disagreeable & troublesome to you, for they are extremely irksome to me.
In the case however before us, I conceive Mr Covachichi might have received a definitive answer, without refering the matter to the Executive. On what part of the Contract with Greenleaf he has founded an opinion that a site was designated for a University, and has built his complaint—or how it came to pass that any allusion to such a measure should have found its way into that Contract, I have no more recollection than I have a conception, of what could have induced it; for your Clerk has omitted sending the Extract.3
It is a well known fact, or to say the least, it has been always understood by me, that the establishment of a University in the Federal City depended upon several contingencies; one of which, and a material one too—was donations for the purpose.4 Until lately, this business could scarcely be said to have advanced beyond the wishes of its advocates, although these wishes were accompanied, generally, with expressions of what might be expected; and whenever the names of Mr Blodget, and the proprietors of that vicinity, were me⟨nti⟩oned in relation to this business, the idea (expressed or implied) always was—that they meant to give the ground.5
Is this the intention of Mr Covachichi relative to the object he is now contending for? if it is, and a sufficient space of ground, on these terms, can be obtained there for this purpose, without interfering with the property of Orphans, my opinion is, that the University ought to be placed there. But, if this is not the design, can that Gentleman, or any other expect that the public will buy (for an exchange is a purchase, and may be of the most troublesome kind) when it has unappropriated ground nearly as convenient? and why do this? because a site has been loosely talked of? because a proprietor, to enhance the sale of his property has coloured the advantages of it as highly as he could? or because the purchaser, omitting to investigate matters beforehand, wants the public to encounter an expence—it is unable to bear—by way of redress for his own incaution? What would have been the answer of the Commissioners, if he had previously applied to them, to know if a University would be placed where he is now contending for? Certainly, that he ought not to calculate upon it. If that would have been the answer then (and unless there are facts which have escaped my recollection) I can conceive no other could have been given, it is not inapplicable at present.
A University was not even contemplated by Majr L’Enfant in the plan of the City which was laid before Congress;6 taking its origen from another source. This plan you shall receive by the first safe hand who may be going to the Federal City. By it you may discover (tho’ almost obliterated) the directions given to the Eng⟨raver⟩ by Mr Jefferson, with a pencil, what parts to omit.7 The principle on which it was done, I have communicated to you on more occasions than one. With esteem & regard I am—Gentlemen Yr Obedient Servant
Go: Washington
P.S. Since writing the foregoing, I have received the extract, omitted to be enclosed in your letter of the 25th ulto.
I do not recollect ever to have seen, or heard of it before. Nor do I see any cause to change my opinion since I have done so, unless upon the Condition which is mentioned in the body of this letter. That is, receiving the ground for the proposed Site, as a donation.
ALS, DLC: U.S. Commissioners of the City of Washington records; ALS (letterpress copy), DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW. Where the ALS is mutilated, the text in angle brackets is taken from the letter-book copy.
Commissioners William Thornton and Alexander White replied to GW from Washington on 5 Dec.: “We have the honour of your Letter of the first Instant; the plan of the city also, came safe to hand. It is with extreme regret that we intrude on your time, which, we are sensible, is devoted, particularly at this crisis, to the consideration of more important objects; but the importunity of applicants, renders it indispensably requisite—Mr Covachichi is gone to Annapolis, when he returns, we shall inform him of your sentiments respecting the site of the university—Mr Scott is gone to Annapolis, & Mr White purposes, shortly, to set out for Virginia, and to remain there, till after New-Year” (LB, DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). After GW had authorized the commissioners to apply for a $150,000 loan from the Maryland legislature, Gustavus Scott traveled to Annapolis on that business (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Oct. [second letter], and n.2 to that document; see also GW to the commissioners, 21 Nov., and n.3 to that document; and the commissioners to GW, 3 Dec.). For White’s travels to his Virginia estate on business matters, see White to GW, 15 Dec., and the source note.
1. The previous Tuesday was 29 November.
2. With help from his cabinet secretaries and Alexander Hamilton, GW was preparing his annual message to Congress (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 Dec., source note).
3. For New York merchant Joseph Covachiche’s correspondence with the commissioners about the site for the national university, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 25 Nov., and notes 1 and 2 to that document. The extract of the 24 Dec. 1793 contract between the commissioners, Robert Morris, and James Greenleaf has not been identified. For the proposed locations of the national university, see the commissioners to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and n.2 to that document; see also GW to the commissioners, 21 Oct., and n.3.
4. For the importance of donations to the formation of a national university, and for GW’s gift of his fifty shares in the Potomac River Company to that effort, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 18 Feb. 1795; see also GW to the commissioners, 28 Jan. 1795, and n.1 to that document.
5. Samuel Blodget, Jr., had designated a portion of his property north of the intersection of Massachusetts and New York avenues as a potential site for a national university (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 24 June 1793, and n.1 to that document).
6. For Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s manuscript plan for the Federal City, an unofficial copy of which was presented to Congress in 1791, see L’Enfant to GW, 19 Aug. 1791; see also GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 13 Dec. 1791, and the source note to that document.
7. For Thomas Jefferson’s modifications to L’Enfant’s plan, and for his collaboration with surveyor Andrew Ellicott in making those alterations, see , 20:57–72. For the engraved plan of the Federal City that incorporated Jefferson’s and Ellicott’s modifications, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and n.5 to that document.